COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund of excess amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation was allowed to be refunded. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigation the respondent reversed an amount of Rs. 29,22,631/ - under protest on 9 -8 -1996. After completion of investigation, show cause notice came to be issued for denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 18,19,543/ -. In these circumstances, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 11,03,088/ - in excess which was not covered under the show cause notice. The respondent filed a refund claim before the Adjudicating Authority for refund of the said amount paid by them during the course of investigation under protest. The same was rejected. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim on the ground that the excess amount has been paid in the absence of any duty demand. Therefore, same has been retained by the department without any authority of law. In consequence to the said order, the respondent again filed a refund claim which was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment as well as the respondent failed to produce the evidence in regard to depreciation claimed by them. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning the refund claim has not been challenged. Therefore, the refund claim is required to be admissible. Aggrieved from the said order, revenue is in appeal before me.

(2.) THE ld. AR submits that in this case the respondent has not submitted any document that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment and also not filed the detail of the depreciation claim. In these circumstances, Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the refund claim. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.

(3.) HEARD both sides. Considered the submissions.